Psychology A level 16 marker advice?

I was wondering whether this answer to the question "Describe and evaluate Milgram’s study on obedience (16)" would be sufficient. I have just started A level psychology so we were able to use notes, i'm just unsure about what to specifically include.

Describe and evaluate Milgram’s study on obedience (16)

After World War II, Milgram questioned how German soldiers, under the command of a high authority, were able to commit such horrendous atrocities. It was argued by many, in particular Adolf Eichmann, that the soldiers were only being obedient and wouldn't have done this otherwise. Milgram sought to answer how the social influence of authority impacted levels of obedience. He recruited 40 male participants through newspaper adverts saying he was looking for participants for a study about memory. When these participants arrived at Yale university in Milgram’s lab they were paid the money they were promised in advance and were told there was going to be a draw for whether they would be a ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’, however this draw was rigged. The teacher was always the participant and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates. The learner was strapped into a chair and was attached with electrodes which gave increasingly severe shocks, and these shocks were demonstrated to the teacher, but after were not real. The teachers role was to give shocks to the learner when they answered a memory question about two paired words wrong, and each time the learner answered wrong the teacher had to increase the voltage starting from 15 working up to 450 volts. As the voltage rose the learner showed how the shocks were painful to the teacher and finally when they gave the learner a shock of 300 volts they pounded on the wall and gave no further response. The experimenter guided the teacher saying no response should be regarded as a wrong answer and if the teacher was unsure about continuing a series of prods given by the experimenter was given. A sequence of 4 standard prods were used including ‘You have no other choice you have to go on’ which encouraged the teacher to continue giving shocks to the seemingly unconscious learner.
A weakness of Milgram's study is that it lacks population validity which, as his target population was the whole world, shows the low generalisability of the study to the rest of the world. The 40 participants in this experiment were all male, between ages 20-50 who lived in the United States which excludes different cultures, races and gender which if included could show different findings. You can see how when the variables change so do the findings of the study, for example Killburn and Mann replicated Milgram’s study in Australia finding that only 16% of participants went to the top of the voltage scale unlike in Milgram’s study where it’s 65%. This can also be seen in Mantell’s study were they repeated the experiment in Germany finding 85% of participants going to the top of the scale. These statistics show how Milgram’s original study cannot be generalised to the rest of the world as different cultures are influenced by authority in different ways.
A strength of Milgram’s study on obedience is the replicability and how results show to be similar in many instances. Due to the standardised testing of this study, such as the same learner being used for each test, the same questions being asked by the teacher and the same prods being used, we can determine that the results are reliable and that this experiment can be reproduced. An example of how this study was replicated was in the French TV show, Le jeu de la mort, where contestants believed they were giving electric shocks, similar to Milgram’s study, and how the confederates pretended to be unconscious by the end. The results from this replication of Milgram’s study found many similarities to how the participants reacted when giving shocks, such as nervous sweating and laughter, showing how uncomfortable they were in obeying the authority and hurting another individual. The game show found 80% of individuals to give the max shock of 460 volts to an apparent unconscious man, showing that Milgram's findings were not a one off occurrence.
Although mundane realism is lacking in this experiment due to it being conducted in lab settings, Milgram argues that there is high ecological validity as it shows the relationship between an authority figure and the participant and accurately describes wider authority relationships. There is high experimental realism, however, as the results have been replicated many times showing how people react in a similar when when dealing with an authority figure. For example, Bickman’s field studies showed how 92% of people obeyed a request to lend another person money for a parking metre when they were in uniform, and only 42% did when the person was dressed in ordinary clothing. This indicates that people are more likely to obey someone in a higher societal position than them, just as the experimenter was intended to act as in Milgram’s initial study. This shows that although the situational factors have changed, people still obey to authority regardless.
An ethical issue which can take away from the legitimacy of this study is the deception the participant faced which could have caused them psychological harm. In the newspaper, the study was advertised as a learning experiment and not a study on obedience, furthermore the participants were unaware of what would happen in the study, such as giving shocks to another person. As the participant was unaware of what they would be taking part in they could not give their full consent, however, without deceiving them there wouldn’t be any experimental realism meaning the study would be pointless. Additionally, it was used to make the study as internally and ecologically valid as possible.This goes into the cost benefit analysis where its argued that whether deceiving the participants was okay in order to find the the statistics which can be used to give insight to how people obey authority, and how this can be/has been used. However, many of the participants showed signs of stress when the experiment was being conducted. Without full knowledge of what was being studied, the participant may have not been able to prepare for what was going to occur which could have caused them psychological harm.